ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Long-term prognosis and risk factor-based surveillance strategy for patients with small gastric subepithelial lesion using endoscopic ultrasonography.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Initial surveillance strategy and subsequent monitoring for small gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) lack a consensus. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors and performance of predictive markers for lesions requiring surgical intervention in patients with small gastric SELs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data of patients who underwent EUS at least twice between 2010 and 2023. Group S1 was defined as patients with a ≥20% increase in size from the initial EUS. The S1 was further divided into 2 groups according to requiring surgical intervention (S2 and S3). Results: Of the 476 patients, 106 (22.2%) had increase in size by ≥20% compared with the initial EUS (S1). The mean follow-up duration in the S1 was 70.2 months. Seven (1.5%) and 38 (8.0%) lesions were observed to have increased in size and were confirmed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors, respectively (S2). Lesions in the lesser curvature (odds ratio [OR]: 6.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.087-17.148, Conclusions: Although the size of the SELs increased, the classification for group S2 was very important. These results emphasize the necessity for effective follow-up strategies, including timely interventions, for small gastric SELs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.